technologies will be dealt into systems eventually. also enabling other technologie0 to make this happen. this gives you kind of a touch interface for a hand gesture and more for facial recognition. we are also working on voice technology as well so you be able to talk to your pc. as you do like today now you say with your phone that's also coming as well so you will be a will to say openness applicatio to naturanl user dictation so a lot of things tob@ make it moe like we interact with each other as opposed to interacting with the machine.g >> host: troy wolverton from "san jose mercury news" what have you learned here at ces? >> guest: i thinkh what we have learned as you are seeing experimentation from consumer electronics manufacturers with experimenting with for ktv's or new types of computer designs are experimenting with features and functions for mobile phone there's a lot of experimentation going on.

not necessarily mind-blowing innovations that what we are seeing is a lot of welding on what we have done before and trying to make devices more useful for us. >> host: troy wolverton subto personal technology reporter. "the communicators" has been with him for a day at ces international in las vegas in their program from ces will continue next week on "the communicators."

>> now a political roundtable discussion with armed services committee members and john mccain and kristen and gillibrand. this is part of today's u.s.-israel policy conference known as aipac being held in washington this week. [inaudible conversations] [applause] >> good morning. it's great to be with the appeared we have three distinguished guests this morning. it immediately to my left right here a man who needs no introduction, john mccain. [applause]

[applause] >> we are excited about john. >> and next to senator john mccain, a man who was inside israel's military establishment for 40 years, and his most recent position head of military intelligence for the non-proliferation operations on behalf of israel the first of which was as a pilot, young pilot in 1981. he was one of the pilots for the israeli operation into iraq and iran. [applause] and a distinguished member of the u.s. senate armed services committee the newer member to

the senate that has played a key role in helping to combat anti-israel sentiment at the united nations and the number of rows for the senate. please help me welcome senator kirsten gillibrand. [applause] c. thank you, thank you. i want to jump right into the discussion and give a short period of time and a lot of territory to cover. senator mccain i want to start with you. iran is on everybody's minds. you have been working and thinking about the issue of iran for a very long time, long before it was on many peoples radar screen. in short what can the united states and israel do working together to deal with iran and prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capabilities? >> thank you dan and thank you for the very warm welcome. [applause] what a great honor just to be with the general.

i once flew the same type of airplane but the differences he used to shoot people down and i got shot down. [laughter] i also want to tell you that i've watched a number of senators come to the united states senate. the senator from new york has done a magnificent job in the state of israel and defense of freedom. [applause] we recently had an encounter with the president of egypt over some of the remarks that he had previously made. i can assure you he will not forget the senator from new york from that encounter. very proud of her. [applause] what is happening in and i ran obviously the centrifuges are spinning in the latest effort at conciliation and some kind of an agreement has failed. this is very clear that they are on the path to having a nuclear weapons.

i don't think it's a question of whether. it's obviously a question of plan. we have one of the foremost experts, mike e. roo -- he wrote ehud barak who is very well aware of this issue. the iranians are watching what happens in korea and north korea they just set off another nuclear device. we have made concession under concession under both bush and obama administration's bandit turned into failure. i know we have a short amount of time. i think that this latest offer on the part of the united states and our allies was doomed to failure and in tehran i think it's viewed as a weakness because of additional concessions. but it is vitally important that in tehran they understand that the united states, that there is

no space between the united states and israel, that is two countries. [applause] and i'm going to give a little straight talk. right now there is a difference between the two countries. one thing i hope the presidents re-election would concerted action if that action is necessary, if it is necessary. [applause] >> senator gillibrand let me pickup on where senator mccain left off. it's true there can be no daylight between the u.s. and israel in dealing with iran but what about the international community? we have seen some of the work you do with helping israel in the u.n.. what can the u.s. congress and administration do to reduce this perception that israel and america are added along? >> is a member of congress we have used that platform as a way to not only show our commitment to israel but to make a

statement that our fundamental securities are intertwined in our national security is intertwined with israel. for example we have a resolution that basically said we will stand by israel both economically and militarily with regard to iran. when the u.n. made statements -- >> it's all right to clap. >> when the u.n. makes a statement we have to stand up to them so whether it a we are standing against durbin to or turbine three, whether it's decline for standing up for israel's right not only to prevent the flotilla from crossing but to have the duty to do so. those statements have been made immediately by american leaders. i agree with senator may came there should be no sunlight and we have to continue to show we are hand-in-hand as allies and friends and fundamentally committed to not only israel's security but the united states national security.

[applause] >> i mentioned that you were -- your work as a pilot and one you have not personally set that i can according to international reports. your head of military intelligence involved with the israeli operations dealing with the syrian nuclear reactor in 2007. [applause] based on those two experiences and now what the west will be dealing with a possible third non-proliferation operation what can the u.s. and israel do together you have heard from senators mccain and gillibrand from the u.s. perspective of what about from the israeli perspective? how do do you see it day-to-day? >> i think we all share the same intelligence appeared we are now on the same page. we are also on the same page on the goal, the strategic goal

with iran being nuclear but between the floor and the ceiling of the problem there are those and we are not in the same place and we should be much closer in how to prevent iran from obtaining a weapon. [applause] in 2012 we have given time for negotiation and for sanctions and reaching an agreement for diplomacy and time is running out in 2013. what makes us a little bit different on iran when it comes to poison. it's different trigger, and maybe not enough trust.

so we have developed that even though we come with different traumas we are the israelis coming with the holocaust and we are 6 million israelis listening to ahmadinejad according to -- of israel. we take it very seriously, very seriously. you don't want unjustly so to go to another war but this is not a war. this is a one night operation and we should speak about it. [applause] >> senator mccain it's hard to consider what is going on vis-à-vis iran in isolation. the whole region is in turmoil. a recent former israeli diplomat said to me that what israel is doing right now making territorial concessions in the context of the peace agreement that israel is being asked to pitch a tent in the middle of the hurricane. if you looked was happening in

egypt and jordan with recent parliamentary elections 25% of the parliament elected islamist and you look at what's happening in syria and lebanon. you recently spent time with president morsi. this has been the cornerstone, one of the cornerstones of israeli security for 30 years. they stun your recent trip in which you have seen the region and the turmoil how does israel consider the range of challenges we face? >> i have not seen the middle east and the world in a more dangerous situation my lifetime. during the cold war it was very dangerous but it was very clear what the challenges were. we are seeing the middle east in particular but the world in the midst of change. i believe that syria is a national and international shame that we have allowed bashar assad to massacre 70 to 80,000 people and we have not done anything about it.

it's an unfair fight. the russians and the iranian revolutionary guard are on the ground. 80,000 people at least have been massacred. lebanon and jordan are in great danger of being destabilized and the united states watches. humanitarian aid doesn't get it. it's very interesting if you go to a refugee camp and meet the leaders of the refugee camp and the woman says senator mccain these young children you see through this camp they will take revenge on those who refuse to help them. jihadists are flowing into syria in large numbers. they are the bravest fighters. they have arms and equipment that you are hearing about, a lot of that is going to the wrong people from gulf states. it is a situation which destabilizes lebanon and destabilizes jordan and eventually poses a threat to the existence of the state state of israel and this time the united

states established a no-fly zone provided arms and equipment to those that are fighting for freedom and it's time that israel helped them in whatever way possible that we can. [applause] >> senator gillibrand i mentioned jordan as well. >> the members of the national security team are pro-israel, not anti-israel. [applause] >> senator gillibrand i mentioned jordan and you spent time looking at jordan. if you go in east there there is concern they some electoral developments isolated and about the increasing sense that the monarchy there is wobbling. how should we and israel think about this important ally to the united states and one of two countries in the region that has a peace agreement with israel? >> you are quite right we need allies in the region and jordan is being destabilized. not only is the muslim brotherhood rising and political power but as the fighters come across we have the risk of

militancy within jordan that will create challenges. we also have the syrian refugee population of 400,000 now in jordan which is a huge financial strain on an art he wavering economy. jordan doesn't have a lot of natural resources. most of their economist written by government and the u.s. being able to provide aid to jordan and allow them to get resources from the imf is essential. our world with regard to jordan, we have to continue to help them keep some measure of calm and be able to help them transition to this difficult time. i think our world with regard to helping syrian refugees is significant. we will have to be a funding ally because it is being destabilized right now. as senator mccain said the whole region is in fluid flux. egypt, when we visited with president morsi senator mccain was very clear as was the delegation that they have to stop the flow of these weapons

through the sinai into gaza. last week's news that we are now we are now going to stop the time most is helpful but we have to draw more -- morsi closer to us and we have to engage him and why secretary kerry's trip over there, giving him $250 million is a step in the right direction. without a stable economy there you will continue to see a slide towards regimes and leadership that are not going to be pro- u.s. are pro-israel. >> general yadlin you look around the region that senator gillibrand has cited and take us inside israeli decision-making. it's our understanding that the possibility of iran getting nuclear capabilities that biggest concern. you talk about all these other countries and you had further east and even iraq, student instability in fact now that u.s. forces are gone.

israeli strategists look at the map and how do they rank and prioritize which issue they have to deal with tomorrow? >> when i was a fighter pilot i used to have wisdom. one was planning and second ever be in euphoria. this is too dangerous. that is what we are. by the way senator mccain saved me from prison because we flew the same airplane, at very tiny cockpit. when you eject you break your two legs so i was in flight school when the senator is imprisoned in vietnam and he broke his legs. when i was hidden in egypt in 1973 he immediately came to my mind. i said i'm not going to eject. maybe i will crash.

thank you, thank you. [applause] >> this is what we call the shared cooperation and shared intelligence between israel and america. >> aipac at its best. >> the only ally of israel that you can really count on, the only ally of the united states that you can really count on his israel. it's the only place -- [applause] that after eucom and give some help and material and equipment, they really love you. they don't hate you. israel is another aircraft carrier. i'm quite concerned that another aircraft carrier will make the military option credible. it must be credible to make sure

that the other options will work. [applause] israel is everyday underground so there is a cooperation between the two militaries and between intelligence and there is ongoing dialogue, ongoing dialogue between the two establishments to see how we cope. non-proliferation in iran is not only an israeli issue. it's a u.s. national interest issue. the terrorism that you see all over is an inner can national security issue. the stability in the middle east and even though senator lieberman told me lately that the fact that israel and the united states discovered natural gas and shale oil is the proof

that there is an almighty and he is listening to our prayers. [applause] however, you cannot really -- the middle east is very expensive. the price of oil has been observed so it's a very important area to both of us and if we do it together, if we cope together with the denuclearization of iran and what will emerge in the arab spring, so-called arab spring i think the two countries will be better off. >> we are running out of time and i want to move to the closing part of the discussion. i want to each of you starting with senator gillibrand, this amazing collection of american citizens, citizen activists who are going to engage their representatives in congress,

this week during the policy conference tomorrow to make the case for the u.s. to enter into a relationship and why is the centerpiece of america's security and stability and position in the world. what is your message to this group of dynamic and energetic activists as they go to make their case? how can they most -- take it most effective? >> for zabalta saint thank you. it makes such a difference a come to washington talk to talk to your congressman and senators about what matters to you because there's so much more work that has to be done. even as senator mccain and i are working hard on things like iran sanctions we find out we have to and gauge the european central bankers to make sure they are not allowing money to flow still into iran. these are issues that need efficacy every single day so i just want to thank you for being so engaged and knowing how important your voices to our democracy here in america. [applause] >> general yadlin you are normally at your important

think-tank institute for national security studies in israel but as she eshoo traveled the world and you spend time in places from jerusalem to tel aviv. what is important from an israeli -- >> this crowd deserves a lot of credit for what they are doing. they have to continue with a very good job they are doing. i think the most important thing at that point is to fight the wrong narrative about israel because israel is the moral ground. israel should we in the same values that we all believe in the path of israel represents. there is now a war. it's not a war with airplane sonata war with tanks. it's a war with speeches with the wrong narratives narratives

and a lot of flies and these people should fight it as we are doing. [applause] let's say we should create a structure to fight this war and the same structure that fights the kinetic war. this war of words is really important so come to israel, see what israel is all about, meet the young generation. it's an amazing generation. as chief of intelligence i used to tell them guys i have a problem. i don't know what to do about it do you have an idea of? these people, 25 years old, 26 years old, he they went for three months and they came back with the most innovative ideas that one day there will be books about it. come and see them. they love you and together we can do it. [applause]

>> lastly the final word goes to senator john mccain. what is your message to this group? >> often tell my friends is hard trying to do the lord's work in the city of satan. it gets harder every single day. by the way your ambassador does a great job. he really does. [applause] a fine job. despite the fact that it became a socialist in the ivy league but other than that. [laughter] my friends, on iran the only way to dissuade the iranians is for them to leave the united states and israel will act together. on egypt, egypt is the heart and soul of the airport all then we must pay careful attention and we must gauge our aid to egypt as to their progress. this is a very serious issue. everybody in this room has something to do besides be here

this morning and this evening. i want to thank you as you are serving a cause greater than yourself interest. you are serving the cause of democracy and freedom and a part of the world where it's a very scarce commodity. i want to thank you from the bottom of my heart because we are in the most dangerous times as i begin my comments in your participation and your involvement in your engagement and support and your commitment, your piece has never been as important as it is today. thank you and god less. [applause] scionti think senator john mccain, kirsten gillibrand and general amos yadlin. and thank you to all of you for participating. [applause]

[no audio] [no audio] increasingc for social security, medicare, and medicaid. everything else the government has done put together is a smaller share of gdp in 2012 than it has been on average in the past 40 years. some places are up, some are down, but everything together is

on balance smaller share gdp. the thing that's grown is social security, medicare, medicaid. and social security and medicare are programs that provide benefits to older americans and to blind and disabled americans, even medicaid which as you know focuses on low income people, about two-thirds of the money that went out of medicaid in 2012 was for the care of older or blind or disabled americans. and those are people who in medicaid who have run out of income or wealth, but many of them in fact younger points in their lives were not poor, they have become poor in old age or become poor through high medical expenses. so given where the growth has been and how those programs are dominating the budget today and dominating growth in the future there's a path forward that doesn't include some of this potential pain for the middle

class? >> i think it is very difficult to see how we can ultimately put the debt on a sustainable path without as the slide says cutting government benefits and services or raising taxes for people to consider themselves to be middle class. that does not mean one can't take action to reduce the deficit that don't affect the middle class. one can raise taxes further on high income people, cut benefits for low income people, but a wide cross-section of americans consider themselves to be middle class, and the magnitude of deficit reduction needed, not this minute, not even necessarily this decade, but ultimately as one looks out over the longer term, the magnitude of deficit reduction that's needed makes it difficult to see how that can be achieved without making changes in those benefits and services or those taxes. i would go back again to the earlier slide about the

distribution of government spending. the government spending is higher today than it has been on average in the past. don't show 2012 here. in 2012, government spending was 2% of gdp higher than it was on average in the past 40 years. but that 2 difference can be more than explained by increasing costs for social security, medicare, and medicaid. everything else the government has done put together is a smaller share of gdp in 2012 than it has been on average in the past 40 years. some places are up, some are down, but everything together is on balance smaller share gdp. the thing that's grown is social security, medicare, medicaid. and social security and medicare are programs that provide benefits to older americans and to blind and disabled americans, even medicaid which as you know focuses on low income people, about two-thirds of the money that went out of medicaid in 2012 was for the care of older or blind or disabled americans.

and those are people who in medicaid who have run out of income or wealth, but many of them in fact younger points in their lives were not poor, they have become poor in old age or become poor through high medical expenses. so given where the growth has been and how those programs are dominating the budget today and dominating growth in the future,

other agencies to work with the dhs. that was a positive

development. >> one of the advantages i had and i suspect everybody felt the same way. i felt there was a sense of mission internally. there was the offices and headquarters were spartan and that's being kind. >> they were all over the place. and, you know, we were building a new department and assimilating agencies and bureaux some had 200 year history. and you had the business line integration. you have to deal with the it and the procurement and the budget. a sense of mission among the men and women was the glue that held it together. i recall that first meeting in the roosevelt room when it was before the president decided to go with the department, there was tremendous resistance from everybody else.

once it was done the sense of mission among everybody that worked there was rather remarkable. >> in my judgment. >> 24/7. 365 nobody worried about overtime or anything. they did it . >> governor, before it was decided to push for it or did you just salute to the once the decision? >> i thought it was necessary to have. i thought the president made the right call. there was plenty of studies with regard to creating a border sick trick -- sec trick agency. whether you had a incident or not build a almost a federal networking system within america to help protect us both 9/11. i think the real challenge was a unity of effort hornetly and vertically. don't forget the other agencies had traditional missions as well. we laid on top behalf they were doing hope land security.

a remarkable crew. >> the secretary, janet napolitano, eventually become a melting pot. it would be a unified defendant rather than the previous with the disembodied head. it's a hard group to assert control over. these are very proud independent agencies. customs has been there for 200 years. you've been there for ten years. where are we in the process? >> age lot of melting has been done. and we call it concept of one dhs. it's the business of focusing now our mission as we have matured from the govern to secretary to me. the ability to say what are our missionaries? counter terrorism and the work on information sharing to the state and local that arises from that. air, land, sea, and border security.

immigration enforcement, cybersecurity, i think has been the most evolved in the last couple of years. and disaster response recovery. for example, when we were dealing with hurricane sandy last fall, fema, obviously was up there on the ground, but cvp was there. the coast guard was there leading search and rescue efforts among other things. we had employees who were out the department over 1400 of them who had taken extra training. come to the new york area, they lived on a merchant marine vessel and literally going apartment to apartment checking on people. making sure things were going right, helping the disaster recovery center and the like. pulling on the sense of mission that our employees join us with and melding them as we do a lot of our different activities has really accelerated. >> secretary, janet napolitano

you gave a vehicle, the third annual address on the state of homeland security. the evolution and future of homeland security. you talked about dhs 3.0. what you mean by that? >> we are a rapidly maturing department. ten years is nothing, really, in the history of particularly large complicated government institutions. this is the most significant reorganization in the federal government. since the creation of dod, really. and 3.0 is now we can take what we have learned. we can take some of the evolving technology that has changed over time. and can really focus on trying to identify passengers and cargo that require more attention versus those that are very low risk. it's what we call risk-based. we can focus our attention on getting more and more people in to precheck or global entry. which are kind of doing your security stuff beforehand.

before you get to the airport. we can really focus on the team building out the state and local. it's needed to have the kind of network that secretary ridge was talking about. >> okay. you brought up tsa. we'll plunge in. it's not. i think you'll agree with it, it's not a beloved cannot. one of the reasons is that most people's encounter with or it impact with it is not necessarily -- tsa. risk-based. how are we going see tsa checks evolve? there's a "new york times" reporter who has a crusade of being able to use devices on -- devices on airplane it's different. >> yeah. >> right. >> taking liquids and gels and shoes, right. >> there you go. >> and all i -- we've already been carving out things. if you are 12 or under or 75 you

don't have to take off your shoes. we have identified they are low risk as a whole. i hope technology is the answer here. we will be able to move to something that allows almost every passenger to keep their shoes on. in the meantime rveg however, we really have melded data bases and other advantage to have another things under one roof. so you can check multiple things very quickly. and started these traveler programs, global entry for those coming internationally and precheck for those traveling deskly. our goal is by the end of the year 25% of the traveling public will be in one of those precheck type programs. that takes them out of the main line. it allows them to accelerate through. it has to help every traveler. most airport are not configured to add lanes. we have difficulty staffing lane

we already have. we can make common sense decisions to focus and remove some people from the lines. >> as we get on planes overseas in many countries. last week i was in argentina. why got on the plan to come back, i didn't have to take my shoes off. what are the chances when president obama has coffee with the successor on january 20th, what will it be? 2017, that we'll be able to go through a scanner at the airport and leave our shoes on? >> i can't put a number on it. believe me, if i could snap my fingers and let everybody keep their shoes on. i would do. i understand the frustration. >> i think janet napolitano and john have to be recognizes about moving it. it's all about evolution. the three secretary have seen the evolution of the department and the maturity of the department. whether it's the terrorist you are concerned about at the airport, or just it's about

risk-management. you can't eliminate. they have decided we're going move in the direction we're going it start prescreening people. use cat da that bases and risk-management. it has been from day one. you can't say to the cub, we have department of homeland security. we are connected the intelligence community and the defense community. we have eliminated risk. no. there's a risk of another attack. i think it's a significant statement on the part of homeland security to the rest of the world and general start managing the risk. we start managing the risk. i think tsa has done a marvelous job. just beginning to talk about what kind of data was out

there. how you could manage. it what kind of tng there was for screening. ten years has seen transformation. it will reflect in a somewhat more carefully sculpted system for screening that we had ten years ago. >> i think we will continue to have that. we'll continue to improve on the technologies. we have cutting edge risk being done on the technology. let me say this, in this country, i didn't have to take off my shoes on in this country or keep my shampoo, or what have you. the threat to the united states is different, and we have to manage risk as it is represented by threats to the united states. and so when you have a group like al qaeda in the arabian peninsula you have focused taking down a plane, be it a passenger or a cargo plane. we have seen several activities

by them over the course of our ten years. you have to manage that risk. it's not just aqap. it's an example the kinds of things that we are managing to keep the traveling public safe. >> okay. last question on tsa for secretary janet napolitano. former tsa administrator and the last administration has a book out about flight screening, perm -- permanent emergency. i feel like i hear you say even though you like to do shoes or liquids, it doesn't seem like it's in the near future or in fact is it a part of the process, and eventually that might be freeze public. >> i would say -- feasible. >> i would say option b. it's part of the process now, but we we are working on technology indeed formulating some but in the meantime, you know, this aviation system in the united states is the largest most complex in the world. we are screening and running 2

million passengers a day. i don't think people who get on planes worry about the safety. they know they're going to be safe. there's a value to that i think should recognize. and when the tso officer is looking at something or making a decision about who can be in what line or what have you. it's done to keep people safe. >> based on what you know about the technology and the research. are we most likely to see a change in -- shoes or liquids first? >> that's a hard question. let's say we are moving with every bit of wisdom we have to do both. >> how about belts? >> same it's easy to get in the program. at that point, you continue have to go -- don't have to go through the other screening mechanism we have. >> okay. bring you in to the conversation in a few minutes. there's a couple of people with microphones. i look forward to your

questions. one of the thin things you known for is great relationship with both sides of the aisle when you worked there. and you maintained those even through tough time for the -- there's a 552 page book. in there they summarize after katrina you did your own review. called for integration of the unified incident command. was there a time or was possibility fema would been changed, gotten rid of, gotten a new name come close a big change after katrina? >> tom will remember this. there was a period of time early in the department when there was a lot of resistance on the part of fema becoming part of the department. i frankly believe more after

katrina than before the an was closer to integration than separation. if you think about the capabilities you want to have in an emergency, fema itself is not have a lot of operational personnel. what you want them to do is integrate and deploy your customs, tso, other agents and some of the airframe and the other equipment and bring that to bear kind of support what is going on. who is in charge? people have the mental model we would have a domestic -- to move around. that is not civilian govern nabs. in the united states with a federal state government system -- the way you bring the gap is have a planning capability and a training capability that get

people to understand what they have to do when there's a crisis. and the example i used to use is a baseball team. you train and you exercise and play practice when you're actually in the ball game, the manager is not out there yelling instructions. they know what to do because they have played together. that was really the models we tried to bring to the department. >> and there was some conversation about rebranding and renaming fema. how close did we come to that? >> i don't this was close. i find the least reproductive part of what people do in washington in response to some challenges, either moving the boxes around or worse yet, renaming things. as if that's going change them. you center to really get to the actual mechanic. that's what we focused on. >> christine covers one of the issues is with us this morning. he has a question. >> hi. good morning, secretary, former secretary.

for sector janet napolitano, i want to ask you the government's power in the area of counter terrorism make certain people in the american public nerve use. i know, you a lot of discussions today dan and his book "killer capture" reports when the information was talking about how much they should share with the public you were among the skeptic who didn't think it would be productive for the administration to be out there talking or giving speeches about the legal rational. is that correct? can you lay out your philosophy on how much the public has a right to know about the matters? >> sure. i haven't seen dan's book. i haven't read it. but here is what i think the public needs to know. first, in termss77 kill or capture. these are among and should be among the most difficult decisions that are made.

there's an emerging framework around the policy decisions. it's a policy framework. there's a legal framework when you read the law and you read, for example, what the attorney general has said among others, there's a very broad legal framework in which you can operate. but the policy framework is and should be much narrower. so i think that is the framework that people should have confidence and being exercised and know that these dispitions are made -- decisions are made very carefully. >> thank you. christina, next. drill down border enforcement. janet napolitano, there's a lot of publicity about the immigrant demainee. you were explaining to me there's a number call issue you

face. >> there was a story we released 2,000 detainee because of sequester. that is really not accurate. >> it was not . >> it was not politico -- i won't say who it put it out there. and as in all things, immigration it develops its own mythology. here is the deal. we are constantly, as the secretaries. know, moving people in and out of detention. these are immigrants who illegal immigrants who for one reason or another are just better in detention than under some alternative. with sequester looming and the end of the continuing resolution in a couple of weeks, it's like the "perfect storm." we have to manage so many different things because we don't have a budget. but the normal ebb and flow.

people removed or bonded out or status changed or for whatever reason. i think; however, for sequester getting ahead of the looming deadline career officials made the decision there was a very -- what i would call a low level, low risk detainee that could be put to a super vised realized program. we're going continue to do that. the secretaries understand rock and hard place. the congress said you have to maintain 34,000 beds and we're not to give the money to do that. they don't give you any flexibility to move from money to another account to handle that. we are going to manage our way through this by identifying the lowest risk and putting them in to an alternative release. >> it's related to scwes sequester or not? >> several hundred but not thousand. >> it's going continue. for the foreseeable future,

yes. >> let me make an observation. the enormous support to the -- you had three secretary had to do triage because congress can't find a way to create the immigration policy. the broad based immigration policy of united states of america. we can decide to whether you released 2,000 or this or that. they tried to do it. right now it appears to be a bipartisan coalition around the notion of immigration reform. let's be very, very clear. the job of the secretary of homeland security with regard to securing the borders would be easier if the united states congress would forget about the partnership and come up with a broad base comprehensive plan. the story ends there. [applause] >> absolutely. >> secretary, you were president bush's point person on immigration. secretary, you were on the hill

at the white house getting the marks in order. it was the last time there was a big effort made on immigration. we're getting to a new push on it. what was learned? -- there was a resist tense sometimes to recognize things have gotten better. i'm not going tell you we have a perfectly secured border or you could have one. if you look at the series of different metric over a period of last ten years there's a steady improvement in term of operational control and in term of the ebb and flow. we have invested a lot in this. obviously we need to continue that. never to acknowledge progress is really self-defeating. that's the main thing. >> the main lesson i think it's reflected in the discussions we have seen this year. there are three major pillar to immigration reform. they are each important and they

have constituency. one is making people confident there will be enforced security and won't simply go away once you have kind of an amnesty. that's the lessson of 86. the reality is that, you know, the fact. matter is -- and the third piece is you do have to have a resolution for the people here illegally otherwise law-abiding that give them some path to straightening themselves out with the law. and having a more sustainable situation where they are able to contribute to the country. if you get those and if you make each of those goals a priority. not trading them off.

>> secretary, what are the mcs of moving something on the hill? >> i think what happened in our period of time, the president was somewhat late in the term. the ability to move congress was diminished. president obama started the second term. second, we had a broad agreement everybody from ted kennedy or jon kyl. the time of getting to the floor really allowed a lot of -- they have improved. show to put facts in it. people understand while it's not time to say we have accomplished border security. you have to recognize there's been a lot of progress. that has to be part of . >> we're going come to you next signal. if you have a question the microphone is coming to you.

we have a question from dwit -- twitter. how is the deor ituation of the manufacturing base a third of job in the last decade created homeland security threats jump up? >> well, i think there's a lot to be said for -- it's kinding interesting restoring manufacturing is in the united states you can look right to the homeland security arena and take a look at critical pieces of our infrastructure that we have offshore. and so if you have the problem with the electronic grid and other areas of the economy, the dependency of our international dependency on foreign forces is a natural security problem. and so i think it's legitimate to say on the 21st century we have to -- think how we bring the basic capability back to the

united states. they are all made overseas. we haven't lost any domestic production whatsoever. nay are big and expensive. they take long time to move. they have so big you have to get governors sign something which waive highway weight limit. after sandy, we needed -- [inaudible] and that whole process, i think, set in to some of the delay. that's just one example that we run in to. we have to go to -- that's the reality. that's what we have. we're not going rebuild manufacturing. so to the secretary's point. we have to do our planning around and and think about the grid is down and the

transformers are destroyed what is our plan? >> homeland security section of this -- [inaudible] one way it's not export highly skilled energy and technology. when you allow to create jobs around it. i was out in california this week using your ingenuity to create business than creates jobs. to do that, you have to continue to bring in -- [inaudible] >> secretary's point. i think question staple a green card to those undergraduate and graduates in discipline and invite them to stay. we need a broad base immigration policy that give people the talent and opportunity stay here. and utilize their talent to advice ours. >> question in the front. >> say who you are and where you

are from. >> stu magson, the national defense mag magazine. i would like to hear from the evolution of the acquisition programs. there's high profile failure and successes, obviously, but i would like to know about how to evolved and what the future might be and what the current state of the acquisition community within dhs. >> this is another -- [inaudible] >> why don't i do it? >> the secretary rich said the nuts and the bolts didn't exist as procurement and human resources and all those things. here's what we have moved to. we have an acquisition that is intradepartmental and -- throughout the department. they look at acquisitions of a

million dollars. we have an acquisition from an officer training. we train our aqua situation officer. with a it is we are looking for and what the processes are. and we really, i think, we have a secretary -- [inaudible] that part of the department what governance around acquisition, which is what you want. that being said, when you are dealing with new technology, and particularly when you are dealing with new technologies in a new domain, that have to be scalable to something larger -- when you are pushing the envelope. you are frowned have failures. that happens. what u want to do is have an acquisition program that allows you to ascertain as early as possible whether something is -- and vet it off as quickly as you can.

it tushes out it doesn't work or it's very expensive or whatever it is. >> secretary has a bock on amazon assessing the first fife years. you say looking ahead the greatest threat we face is a faltering resolve a and encroachment. how worried are you? >> i think it's a challenge that we face. to be honest -- after having years go by where there was a not hayeking or successful attack on airport based in the u.s. where there hasn't been another 9/11, thank god. there's a tendency where do we need this? it's fair to revisit certain thing and recognize to adjust risks.

that's good thing. what is not realtistic to somehow believe because there hasn't been a successful attack doesn't mean people have tried given the nature of the defenses we have had. that means the problem has gone away. the occasional efforts we see to penetrate our defense like the -- like the car cargo jet a couple of years ago. everybody got vaccinated fifty years ago. but polio is still out there. it doesn't mean if we stop vaccinating it wouldn't come back. i think the answer here is we need to ask ourselves do we need everything? can we change it as technology changes? we shouldn't kid others the threat has not gone away. and the biggest threat a bomb? is it a containerized cargo? what codo we need to worry about now? >> the two things i've said awhile. not from the stand of point of frequency of occurrence but

catastrophic result on biological -- we had -- [inaudible] at the same time we are put more and more what we don't internet not just the information but the intellectual property but the actual operational systems. those . >> secretary janet napolitano within the president in conjunction put out at executive order on cyber secure tip. how does the administration work with the hill to work with the gap to fill the order and expand it? >> well, the order actually is really recognizes -- really says if the civilian world dhs has possibilities particularly for working with the private sector to identify and protect the nation's infrastructure.

and that is very constant with our requirement on the physical -- [inaudible] infrastructure. so we have real implementing there. -- we work with the nsa, we work with the fbi, but on the implementation moving forward. there's certain things that cannot be done by the executive order. i'll give you one example. we would like to have the same high rate flexibility for those on the cyber realm. where they are able to make different kinds of offers and packages that you would. that will be very help to feel us. that has to be done. >> i think it's any time the issue of cybersecurity is raised on the presidential. -- [inaudible] the president signed that order.

implit it in the order is -- the private sector has not invested our critical infrastructure. they have invested billions and billions. the second thing i found in the order, there's good things a lot of good things in there. the notion that in 2013, the president of the united states has to sign an executive order compelling the federal government to share unclassified information when it's directed when there's a debt -- threat directed. it makes me wonder where have we been for the last ten years. it began from day one, the sharing of information. i used to say homeland security is a consumer of information. we don't generate our own intelligence. the fact of the matter now twenty years after we began

using the internet we have a president directed the federal government you are allowed to share unclassified information. it's almost unspeakable to that we have come this point. it shows you the problem inside the federal government sharing relevant information and treating the state and local in the private sector as partner. as cohe'sive. again, i give the president for raising the visibility of cybersecurity. i think the provision in the connective order shows you the challenges that janet napolitano and the private sector have going forward protect the critical infrastructure that basically the federal government has. >> actually it's an important point. the legislation action would be helpful. >> absolutely. there's a networking of rules governing what the intelligence community can look at and not look at. what they can talk about or not talk about which was a simple --

in the cold war that made noceps in a world in which attacks come from next door, really. and so eliminating some of that and allowing the free to flow information -- i think is -- would be a big step forward. secretary janet napolitano earths to pass a law last year were not successful. what can we do this year? >> well, i think this -- one of the thing that did happen last year was members of the congress being educate order what cyber means and what cascading effects can occur if cyber networkings are interrupted or taken down. so i think we have deal with a congress that basic knowledge greater than we were a year

ago. there's a lot of interest in the bipartisan way on the hill. whether he support the effort and do whatever we can. >> how optist mystic are you about the security law? >> i wouldn't put off on it. i would say there's a lot of interests -- [inaudible] you know, i think if it doesn't -- that's hard to speculate on. >> i will say this, look, we're talking about the nation's -- [inaudible] the fact of the matter is that that information sharing with -- on technology from the nsa.

we have the ability to come in and help deal with the threat. really supporting both houses. okay i think senator and congress are a good bipartisan group. i think they are committed to try to e resolve the differences. if not this year but by the end of next year. >> secretary pointed out earlier improved metric. the border are you concerned that some of those have to do

with the downturn in the economy stronger enforcement. are you worried if the economy beings up you would have more trouble? >> i think that is a legitimate concern. i think it has been a last few years record amount of -- manpower technology. everything down at the border you can imagine. you can always do more. i worked that border for twenty years. i know, the border. and you always do more. in terms of huge effort by the country down there, that's been happening and the numbers improved. the numbers of illegal immigrants are way down. about numbers for seizures and drug is done as well. i will tell you that if the economy comes back, we are more than likely to see more attempts to get to the united for jobs. this is why one of the reason why we the immigration -- [inaudible] we need a better way to deal with employers who hire illegal

labor. it needs to be national scope. we need to have a cultural compliance where that's involved. and we also need to let more people -- they were sent years ago. they make no sense in the cases. we need to deal with visa reform. people can illegally through the port. >> is the economy improves as jobs come back. you expect more illegal encroachment across the board ensure >> i think we are preparing for that to occur. again, this is why senator did a great line to me. at this point dhs, congress doesn't need to give them -- it needs to fix the ship. i think fixing the ship is critical. >> i think we agree as part of your number one priorities, immigration part of the freely and secretary is referring to. more enforcement will be part of that pack page. what needs to be done is not

being done. >> well, i think we need to continue to put technology at the border. new technology the technologies immediately deemployability. >> like what? >> you know, things that can be deployed at night. the sensors and the radar moved around. there's a menu of things that makes sense at the physical border. so we're going continue to put that down there. if we can, given sequester, given the budget. but it is our intent to keep focusing on the border. recognizing, however, look the major driver of demand, there are two major drivers of illegal immigrant to our country. one, a large -- in the economic the work and the families. they send the money home. and another is a drug demand. we want to focus on the narcotic

traffic. >> a significant part of the challenge for illegal immigrants aren't those that come -- port of entry and overstay. that's not -- that's an issue of having an verification system that is effective. again, you look at the march of technology. you're dealing with the issue five or six years ago the technology matured a lot. that's way to get that to work more efficiently. >> a question on the border as part of the package of the immigration. the the immigration gang came up with one component talked about senator schumer at the playbook breakfast. some sort of electronic nonforgeble means to verify employment. social security cards, some sort of biomettic device.

what is the likelihood of we'll wind up with that? >> i don't know what is in the final package. i don't think it is upon that. >> are you for this? >> i think something in that realm, it may not exactly be the social security card, it may be something else. something in the realm that allows for you to use a higher legal labor, allows those applying for jobs to make sure that they have the right identification. something that is easy, that is relatively inexpensive. everyone can use it. >> probably by bimettic? >> probably. and just -- we were talking about cyber. there was so much publicity recently about china hacking to news organizations. and corporations. what is specifically being done now that we know what where it is coming from? >> well, first of all, the issue

of aattribution is easier said than done. >> the military -- [inaudible] >> or what have you. that attribute using has to be done carefully. at this point, we're in a world where issue of hacking originating from china is a very serious issue. it needs to be viewed at such. we have seen the theft billions intellectual property among other things. in my judgment, in the cyber mode one of our chief . >> okay we say before we say goodbye here. we'll do a little bit on the personal side. governor ridge, you are a personal friend with around palmer. you a big golfer. give us a tip. [laughter] >> don't cheat on your handicap. it doesn't give you any benefit.

the higher the handicap the better. >> he's a delight. his success as an athlete is frankly my judgment overshadow bid his personality his commanding presence. he legitimately likes people who like golf. he remains committive at 80 plus years of age. and i remember watching him on the black and white tv. the real small tv and my dad and i were and for him to become a close personal friend one of the benefit of public service. i only one know one king. it's arnold palmer. >> secretary, on april 7, i'm running my first race. a ten miler. you run ten miles for fun. what kind of training should i be done? >> if you start with a ten mile race. it's big.

most people start with a 5k. >> go big or go home. >> my basic tip. be careful what you eat the night before and the day off. don't break any new shoes when you run the race. get there early so you can get yourself positioned and calm before the race. have fun. step up the training praise five weeks. you want to run ten mile or flat just to test yourself out of. you don't want to overtrain. >> and secretary janet napolitano, is it true from one airplane flight you read two robert . >> yeah. i read i finished -- [laughter] i finished "mas of the senate qses and moved to the rest recent one. they are marvelous. anybody interested in history or particularly in legislation moves and how big ideas can be

forged within government they are great books. >> you were attorney general in arizona. what did you learn what can a layperson take away from master of the senate. that is practical about washington? >> well, i think it was a different day in time. ly tell, on the 24/7 news cycle changes the dynamic. i think a lot. one of the things that you appreciate when you read this stuff is you normally don't get the full policy done in one swoop. times so you to take this much and this much and this much. we saw that with the civil rights act. real

the college was founded by members of church of the brotherhood one of the nation this toric colleges. we are dedicated to educating our lives to service in

leadership our mission statement highlights our long-held belief that learning is most noble when used to benefit others. values of peace and nonviolence and human dignity. with our heritage we call together for this evenings programs in response to the the mass shootings that we have experienced over the years, including one in lancaster county. i hope to spend the next hour or so thinking critically and constructively about how best to respond to these particular

tragedies, as well as our surroundings of the violent culture. we owe special thanks to judy and paul for their exceptional service to the college and particularly to our peacemaking commissioners. another key sponsor is the center for global understanding and peacemaking. kate wolf is to be thanked for her role in we want to thank her. i would also like to thank our technical operations director. thanks to the cosponsors to this evenings event. the peace and conflict studies program in the department of

sociology and anthropology and social welfare and the department of education, the office of the faculty dean and the office of the provost. we also want to offer a special thanks tonight to c-span for covering this important program. the schedule looks like this. following my comments will be our keynote speech. then we will engage in a queue an question and answer time. if you have a question, please move to one of the microphones. it will last 20 to 30 minutes until the professor want to downgrade we ask that you kindly remain seated until the entire program includes and that you then join us here for an informal reception.

it gives me great pleasure to welcome tonight's speaker. james alan fox. a professor of criminology, law, and public policy at northeastern university. he has written 18 books, including the will to kill, making sense of senseless murder and extreme killing, understanding serial and mass murder, and violence and security on campus from preschool to college. professor fox has been published in dozens of journals and magazines, primarily in the areas of crime and school and campus violence and others. he has also published 200 columns in newspapers around the country, including "the new york times", the "los angeles times", "chicago tribune", and usa

today. he currently blogs on crime and punishment, the boston globe, and he is an authority on homicide and he has appeared frequently as a consultant in national television programs and news networks. his expert testimony also includes numerous appearances before the united states congress and at the white house. professor fox met with an advisory committee an expert panel on save and drug-free schools. and served as a visiting fellow with the u.s.

there had been a pervasive feeling like there was now that mass murderers are crazed lunatics who suddenly

snapped and go berserk and shoot anything and anyone that moves. but they kill indiscriminately. you know, this idea that they suddenly snapped, what made it's not, it just doesn't make sense when thinking about it. a guy suddenly snapped and he just happens to ak-47 guns, ammunition and has gone for just such an occasion. obviously not, these, in fact, are typically well-planned assaults they plan them for days and weeks and months and years. the preparations include where to kill, when to kill, with reference to kill, they are very methodical, deliberate and determined. dead set on murder, and they will kill no matter what we put in our path as an obstacle. for example, the columbine shootings from 1999.

april 20 happen to be hitler's birthday and it wasn't just a coincidence. they did it because they admired adolf hitler. they admired the power and control that he represented. they survived that day at columbine high school and the next plan would be to hijack an airplane in flight to the skyline of new york city. this was two years before 9/11. it is interesting when 9/11 happened. some americans that it was unfathomable to use an airplane as a weapon. two kids from colorado thought about it two years earlier. so to show the level of planning

that is involved in this. one man was smiling as he was shooting people down they had it all planned out. they have gone through there, they were very comfortable with the plan the rest of us, of course, it reacted with hysterics. now, what is the most general motive -- and they do have clear-cut motives. they see themselves as someone who has been mistreated, someone who has been dealt with unfairly. this man, two years ago, he had a rampage at this distribution plant where he worked in connecticut and he had a clear sense that he was the victim of racism and he wasn't getting the

promotion that he deserved and he very calmly went about the process of calling 911 this. typically their whole family were all the people out of work because it felt like it was unfair. so she went on this rampage and systematically executed the professor who had denied her the

tenure that she believed that she richly deserves. sometimes they kill certain kinds of people. certain categories of people. for example, a mass murderer might want to cover a certain group of people. the kind of victim is not random. one who went to the university, he wanted to find women who were taking men's jobs. so he ordered all the men to leave. and there were 14 women that he systematically shot and killed because they were taking his job away. men's jobs away. the rarest form, however, is the

totally random attack, like what we saw at the movie theater in aurora. generally you have these paranoid thinking and a paranoid view of the world, thinking that the whole country is corrupt and unfair and they just want to kill a lot of people to get evil with the society that has been unfair to them. now even though most mass murderers kill specific people for specific reasons, the ones that are random are indeed the most frightening. after all it can happen any time at any place to anyone. even you. that is obviously very scary. another myth that we have heard of recently is that mass murders are on the rise.

we have seen lots of publicity is in the paper about mass shootings and talking about newtown, connecticut, and aurora, colorado, and there is a map that illustrates this idea that we have this epidemic going on of mass murder. well, then we have lots of people trying to explain why there has been an increase. one gentleman talked about an increased number of schizophrenics to go untreated as the cause. bill clinton and some other gun-control advocates talked about the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban and that is why mass murders are now on the rise. they don't have that anymore. people on the other side, they say that we have more mass murderers now because we do not allow americans to carry enough concealed weapons because if more people had guns and concealed weapons, perhaps they

would intervene and stop the mass murder in their tracks. everybody has these theories as to why it's increasing. there is one flaw, however. in all of these experiences, it is not increasing. i do not want to bore you with too many statistics. an overdose of statistics is called mass murder in my field. but i think it's important we put it into some perspective. these are a number of cases over the past 35 years. we average every year about 20 mass shootings and about 100 victims. so it's not an epidemic. it is not on the rise. i do not want to minimize the pain and suffering to the victims, families, communities. it is awful when it happens. but we also have to keep in mind that there is no upward to victory. it is scary and awful, but it is not on the rise.

well, why does it seem like it is on the rise? well it does because it has to do with perception and our fears. the only thing that is on the rise is our fear. the reason is because of the style and pervasiveness of mass media. how these events are covered in the news. thirty years ago, when there was a mass shooting, you did not have 24 hour news channels like cnn and msnbc and those who did around-the-clock coverage. on the scene so that reporters could put microphones in the faces of children who were running out of the building while the tears are still fresh. we did not have that technology. so we did not quite have the same impact. but nowadays when the news channels have fleets of satellite trucks, they can bring

you all of the details live as it's happening, right to your high-definition television set and it makes it seem like it is almost next door, even though it may be actually hundreds or thousands of miles away. so it just feels that way. now, one thing that does disturb me in particular about the way that the media covers it. and i understand that they have to cover the news and people have to understand what is going on. but why is the media always talking about the biggest and baddest record. this is just something that they have latched onto. for example, right after the shooting, i was having a conversation with one of our local anchors and she said to me, isn't this shooting in colorado the largest mass murder of all time? and i said no, actually oklahoma

city's bombing was a bigger mass murder. she said well, what if we just said mass shooting instead of bombing. now is that the largest? and i said no, it is not. we actually had a larger one at virginia tech. and what we just said number of people killed and injured. because aurora had 58 killed. and i said no, we had the episode in norway, one who killed 77 people. and she said, well, that's a different country. it's the largest shooting in america with the total number of victims? she said, good. when sandy hook happened, there is all this talk about it being the largest school shooting. i guess if you exclude the 2004

siege in russia where hundreds of kids were killed or virginia tech, you know, it's a college. or if you ignore the kids that were killed in michigan in the 20s when a kid bombed his school. so we seem to want to talk about this. we always want to call it the deadliest were the worst were the biggest. there is really no purpose in doing this. the pain and suffering associated with this, does it really matter? is it important at all? probably not. at the same time there is a downside when we are constantly talking about records and media exposure and the downside is that some like-minded individual

out there will see this as an opportunity for recognition and a chance to break the record. you may have heard that just the other day news reports that adam lanza, the shooter at sandy hook, he was trying to outshoot and he was trying to break the record. he followed the records. they were records there and we actually challenge others to see if they can outshoot and outdo their heroes. of course, the overwhelming majority of americans who watch the news about this identify with the pain and suffering of the victims. and their families. and they pray every day that an episode like that will not happen. but there is a small portion who identifies with the power of the perpetrator. not to mention the undeserved celebrity and those are the ones

that we see as a challenge. there is an important distinction that we have to make between this shedding light on the crime and spotlighting the criminal. for example, the shooting at virginia tech. i can understand that the tabloids had a field day with this kind of stuff. it is the motto of "the new york times" what it does is turn monsters into celebrities and

they don't deserve this kind of and by the way there is a whole following in all sorts of pure finale a trying it on for the purpose of this, of course. as adults who look at this and say oh, they are monsters, how many 14 year olds say, goodness, we got even with all those bullies and jocks and the nasty teachers and they are famous for it and on the cover of time magazine. so i can do from the perspective of the teenagers, it's very different.

so i think given all of the attention that we pay to the shooters and the psychological autopsies afterwards, in the aftermath of these cases survivors invariably question why certain warning signs were ignored. warning signs that even include talking about killings. why didn't someone do something about it and stop them? well, if anything, they are yellow flags and the only turn red when the blood has spilled. but that is after-the-fact. when all of these warning signs become crystal clear. of course, hindsight is 2020. so there is indeed a profile and people say, can you help us to predict this. there are common features,

depression, resentment, fascination with violent media. interest in weapons. those characteristics describe lots of americans. tens of thousands of americans have a profile very much like that, but they won't kill anyone, much less commit mass murder. the problem is the profiles in the checklist that are always out there they tend to over predict. it's a matter of needles and haystacks. haystacks of people who pick their profile. they never smile, always blaming other people for their shortcomings. but those who actually go out and kill are few and far between. that is why we just can't predict. though we would like to, we cannot. well, in the wake of shootings

involving perpetrators that had clear psychological issues, we constantly hear talk about having expanded treatment availability. americans unfortunately suffer from depression and many go without treatment because they can't afford it. it would certainly be a legacy to the tragedy in newtown and mental health services were improved and expanded. but you know, that would not necessarily reached the very few who would seek to turn their school, shopping mall, movie theater, into their personal war zone. for the most part these angry individuals believe that the fundamental problem is not then. it is everyone off.

it is society that is corrupt, they believe. it is not them. if you say we would like to expand treatment options, there's nothing wrong with me. what i need is fair treatment. and the other problem is that we constantly are referring to mass murderers as wackos and sickos and that does not help destigmatize the mentally ill and encourage people when we use these kind words. it concerns me at some level that we are suddenly very concerned about expanding mental health treatment ever since sandy hook and aurora. we should ask, why are we doing

this? we should want to help people that need psychological treatment because we are concerned about them and not because we are worried about who they might kill. you see, we should be expanding mental health treatment because people are troubled and not because they are troublesome to others. so it's a good thing, but for the wrong reasons. if there are all of these profiles and if indeed some of the shooters have had deep-seated psychological issues, and maybe the way to go is to have background checks, keep those dangerous weapons out of the hands of a madman and in the hands of law-abiding citizens. one thing that is predictable about mass murder is that it will generate a debate over gun control. you know, they're worse some

people who were insisting that we have to find a way to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of these folks, and indeed we may see that congress has the universal background check, closing the loophole. it's a nice idea and lots of people are getting behind it. the only problem is that mass murderers do not have criminal records and they do not have a history of psychiatric treatment. they would not be disqualified from buying a gun legally. in fact, there was a recent examination by the mayors against illegal guns. of the 43, none of the shooters were denied buying illegal guns based on federal law. they were not disqualified. in only four of the cases to the

perpetrator come to the attention of mental health practitioners or legal authorities. essentially, background checks could be a good idea, but it may not help the problem of mass murder. indeed, you cannot deny someone their second amendment rights because they look strange, they look or act on or act in a bizarre way. you cannot pass a law that says people who look strange cannot get guns. order if they could not buy a gun legally, one thing is that they can always steal a gun from a family member or friend. an 11 year old mass murder in arkansas got his gun from his grandfather. he could not buy it legally but he could certainly take one. i mention the federal ban on assault weapons before and when

we think about the 1994 ban that we had for four years, it had absolutely no effect on the incidence of mass murder. part of the problem -- excuse me, something happened here. oh, there we go. mass murderers do not use assault weapons most of the time. over this 30 year period of time, only about one quarter use guns that would be classified as assault weapons. by the way, if they didn't have those, they would have plenty of other weapons that are deeply dangerous. and even if they wanted to have an assault weapon, there is a large number of them already in circulation. so if we ban assault weapons or limit the size of magazines that could be sold, they could be

talking about one that is already in circulation. others can say that we need to expand the right to carry laws so that we could deter mass murders, maybe they won't attack us if they know that we have guns, or at least stop them in their tracks. i mentioned earlier that mass murderers are very calm and collected during the rampage. it is just the rest of us in a state of hysteria and panic. the great concern is that if there were a large number of americans there with their guns inside of their sweaters, that there would be a wild shootout and lots of innocent victims would be caught in the crossfire. but i guess the question about whether the right to carry laws could be effective in preventing mass murder is an interesting

question. some actually studied mass murder cases from 1977 in states that had right to carry laws, and they found that the right to carry laws had no effect on an instance of mass murder, it did not increase it would decrease it. since the newtown shootings, as many as six states have already proposed to arm schoolteachers and train them to shoot. indeed, based on a recent gallup poll, apparently 62% of americans think that this is a pretty good idea. the supporters of this armed teacher movement argue that ever since the early 1990s when congress passed the law that made schools gun free zones, that anyone who brought a gun to school would know that they

would be the only one. and the idea is that maybe we need to have a deterrent. maybe johnny wouldn't bring a gun to school view that the faculty was on. well, it's really hard to imagine that some vengeful student that is willing to die is going to be dissuaded by knowing that the faculty has guns. in fact, he might have lost his opportunity to shoot it out with the principle in the cafeteria, he could be a big start to his peers. but actually we want faculty to educate the students and not execute them. particularly the schoolteacher who had trouble dealing with the kid in the back row. i don't think there is anything more dangerous than not shot. but really, it should be a matter of a's and b's, not guns

and ammo. but what about colleges? ever since virginia tech, there is a group of students that formed a group called concealed carry on campus, and it basically said that this would not have been so great if students there had been allowed to have their guns with them if they could intervene. they made some headway around the country in getting states to pass a law that allows students to carry concealed weapons in college campuses. not a good idea as far as i'm concerned. some states totally restrict things. there are three states that do allow students to carry guns on college campuses. the rate of murder is very low. only about 20 students murdered every year nationwide. compare that to 1000 who commit

suicide. or 1500 who died in response to substance abuse. at the same time with having a large number of students who are depressed, a lot of drinking and drug use on campus, i don't think guns would be a very good mix. i think the guns could be left to the public safety personnel on campus. and there are those people who would like to go to the school where they are absolutely positively assured that they will not be killed. if they want that kind of guarantee, maybe they should try an online degree. that is the only way to know for sure. [laughter] >> then there are people who say that what we really need to do is just enforced the existing gum on his.

we have plenty on the books. maybe even use the death penalty as a threat. well, killers expect to die. usually by their own hand or maybe by first responders, they are ready to die, they are ready to leave this world and nothing in the way of prosecution of punishment will divert them from their mission. nothing at all. they want payback. then there are those who say, well, we just need to increase security in our schools. school children are vulnerable. like adam windsor wanted to find a place where he could kill lots of young children and a school is a very convenient place to find lots of young children congregating together. you do not have to go very far. so the immediate response is to increase security in schools. in the short-term it makes

sense. medical doctors, surveillance cameras, 95% in terms of schools is spent on hardware. it doesn't always work the problem with all the security equipment is that it can be counterproductive. the security system that we have is really only a minor inconvenience for somebody who really wants to kill. for example, i mentioned this

and he and his 13-year-old buddy all they did, they pulled a fire alarm and waited for all the classmates to come out and they shot them dead outside. so a lot of schools are also having these lockdowns. we need to prepare students to go through these drills, like when i was a kid, we had drills where we got under a desk in case of a bomb. in looking back on it, i know that had there been a bomb, that desk of mine would not have helped, it would have been vaporized like i would be as well. but it actually worried me. i was only thinking about what we going to have for lunch that

day and am i going to get beat up by the bullies. but the nights that we had these drills, i was really starting to worry and think about what it would be like. that is the problem with drills, at many schools they are now having these things. if there is a violent episode, have the faculty tell the kids what to do. they don't have to practice it. in fact, if something actually happened in the panic of it all, hopefully they would just listen to the teacher what schools need to do is take the same approach as the airlines. it has a very low probability. what is it they tell you what to do and no one pays attention to

something bad happens, you listen to them. i think we need to keep it low-key approach with schools. it could be personal protection that are selling special backpacks. the idea is that maybe the bullet will hit the back pack backpack and save your life. they often tell you to fill your backpack with really heavy books so that maybe the bullet comes, you will have a chance against things with that organic

chemistry book. i will say that if someone does start shooting from the best thing you can do is to drop the backpack and run as fast as you can and it will only slow you down. i will say that as an exception, there was one student who the next day after the shooting was looking in her backpack and she saw a bullet hole in her statistics textbook. she didn't even know that it had happened. statistics is good for you. the nra, of course, in the wake of sandy hook, they contributed their part. they said that what they need to do is have more armed guards at the school. well, nevermind the fact that columbine had two armed guards, not certainly didn't help.

they couldn't be in all places at all times. and what about the buses and bus drivers and the ball fields and playgrounds. you know, when you really think about this, many more kids are killed every year in bicycle accidents and killed at school. so maybe we need a national buy a bicycle helmet law. maybe we need lifeguards, not armed guards. okay. just recently we heard talk about atlanta, that he spent long hours in his basement

playing violent video games and people thought that that made him become a mass murder. the idea that video games is a problem in the cause is not new. it did not just come up this past week. in fact, after the columbine shooting, a gallup poll found that 62% of americans thought that violent entertainment media was a major cause of school shootings and 83% of americans supported restrictions on selling violent media to children. back then also, the attorney general at the time actually made it a priority to cleanup the media. he saw a violent videogame playing as a cause of the shootings. it is not surprising that the

list of all the school shooters and adult mass murders, many of them love violent video games. when they are not doing this, they are playing it. so it might be like a emerging in violent video games is a symptom and not a cause. socially isolated, awkward and a recluse. that has a lot to do with why he was playing video games and a lot of why he committed mass murder. it could be then again at playing the video games is a symptom and not a cause. okay. my time is basically a up here. i would like to conclude. i have been rather critical of many of the proposals that we hear these days about how to curtail mass shootings.

i would like to conclude on an optimistic note, or at least one that is not so negative. the fact that gun control expanded psychiatric services and increased security measures in schools has a very limited ability to prevent mass shootings. that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. in the aftermath, there is now momentum in washington. there is momentum with state legislators around the country to establish policies and procedures to make us all safer. lots of good things, the right things to do, although not necessarily the best reason to do them. the irony is that we are doing it because of mass murder, but that is a very crime that is preventable. gun restrictions and other initiatives may not stop the next mass murder where he strikes, but it could enhance the well-being of americans in the process.

besides doing something instead of doing nothing. elisa counteracts this feeling of helplessness that many of us have. so many of the well-intentioned proposals are part of these shootings and they will do their part that plague us daily. but we should not expect that it will take a bite out of crime and its most extreme form of mass murder. of course, taking a nibble out of it and the rest would be a good thing. problem is that you hear people say that we need to do acts and why nz to ensure that this will never happen again. well, if that is your expectation, you are going to be heavily disappointed because it will happen again. it doesn't mean that we

shouldn't try. if we really wanted to illuminate the risks, if we really wanted to bring the mass murders down to zero, we would have to take some very extreme steps in america that we are either unable or unwilling to take, like abolishing the second amendment in getting rid of all guns or achieving full employment or restoring our sense of community where everyone knows their neighbors and cares about the people in their neighborhood. we're rounding up anyone who is looking at this in a preventive way. mass murder may be one of the prices that we pay in america for living in a society where personal freedom is valued. make you very much. [applause] >> my moderator.

>> thank you. for that very provocative talk, i don't know about you, but i have had some of this blown out of the water tonight. read his article on the website and you can have this done in a detailed fashion. this is a time for question and answer. for us to talk about gun control and school violence. i would like to ask you to come forward, don't be shy. there's a microphone to the left and one in the center and so if you have a question, please come forward. we hope that you have lots of questions. make your way to the microphones now if you are. that would be great. i will call on you at the appropriate time. we can start off with a question as people come forward.

>> some people say that we do. i am generally a gun-control person. i have done work for the brady center. i'm involved with lawsuits against the banister industry make sure that there is a better job being done for marketing. i am in favor for repealing amendments which prevents people like me from analyzing which gun sellers are responsible for most that are being used in crime. so i am an anti-gun person. i have to recognize also that there are thoughts on both sides. i would like to see an assault weapons ban. but i also recognize that some things don't have an affect.

the assault weapons ban that we did have, only 5% prior to guns used in crime were assault weapons. during the span, and went down to about 2%. keep in mind that people oftentimes confuse assault weapons and semi automatic. most guns that people on our semi automatic. as you saw on the previous line. this popular weapon among mass murders is a semi automatic weapon, but not the other. >> i was just wondering if you could maybe speak about what i believe is the tendency of the media to portray especially white mass murderers as mentally ill?

>> that they are sick and not back, i get what you're saying. i'm not sure that there is any tendency to do that differently than black mass murders and there are some black mass murderers. but one thing is for sure. but the white mass murderers to get more publicity. whether they talk about mental illness or not, they certainly get more publicity. part of it has to do with the rest of us and how we tune in much more in cases that we can relate to. there are an awful lot of mass murders that involve black perpetrators and people just don't remember them. sometimes they only remember the long island railroad shooter. probably because he killed whites. but i don't think there is any great tendency for him to differentiate by race in terms of characterizing it as crazy.

let me again emphasize that most mass murderers are not crazy and they are not mentally ill. they are angry and bitter. they are unhappy. they are suicidal. they are depressed. maybe even clinically depressed. but they are not mentally ill to the extreme that something that they are. that just does not fit. one more thing i could say as well, since you brought up that question, with the atlanta case there was a lot of discussion about asperger's syndrome. this year they are is when people say asperger's is involved, iciness with other cases, the parents start saying,

oh, they don't let their kids play with the kid in school that has asperger's syndrome. the rate of violence among those that have the disease is extremely low, lower than the general population. with the case of atalanta, it was his awkwardness in the fact that he didn't fit in. that was related to his pressburger syndrome. but it's the result of his social anxiety and loneliness and isolation. generally asperger's is very am not angry type of disease and murderous. >> as you pointed out earlier, the average has not changed much over the last two years, but do you believe it could because of the media hype, giving celebrity or fame to these shooters, sort

of negating actions by the government or other agencies? almost like it hasn't changed because some are going up and some are going down at the same time? >> i'm not sure that i quite get that. >> do you believe that more shootings are instigated that people want the fame that is generated by the shooters and that increases being negated by any kind of action and the reason that the shootings every year are not going down is because of media hype causing more people to want to engage in activities? >> so what is a preventive action? >> is media hype generating no change at all? >> when it tends to do is create copycatting. but it is not the biggest part of the problem. you can see clusters of cases in the 1990s, we had a series of school shootings by students. and they often talked about

others who came before them as being heroic. in the 80s we had a series of shooters and that is where we got the term going postal. were a number of them spoke admiringly about those who came before them. so they wanted to walk in their footsteps. so there are instances of copycatting. but it doesn't make someone who is happy with her life, content and healthy become a mass murderer. the opportunity for becoming a celebrity and having your picture on the news, for most americans it is not going to be very attractive. all of the other characters just have to be there. so i think that even though that the copycatting has some effect, we should not overstate it either. i am not sure what preventative

actions have worked. i don't think any of them do. i think that these are rare events. the ones that we cannot predict. it would be very difficult to prevent them. >> my question is do you believe that there was much less media coverage on the shooters, that it would persuade shooters for not doing these things? >> i do not think it would dissuade them. i think the media coverage -- the worst part about media coverage is that families have lost loved ones and it adds insult to injury that some guy who everybody knows his name, one who has a show from last night, and why? because he killed my